Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Tdog

David Reed Fumble Recovery

70 posts in this topic

[size=4][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]In my opinion, the ruling on the recovery of the ball was bogus. The Ref and the NFL owe us a large appology for screwing up the call. According to Rule 3, Section, 2, Article 7 of the [u]NFL Rulebook[/u]: Player Possession- it states[/font][/size]

[size=4][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]"Note 1: A player who goes to the ground in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball (with or without contact by an opponent) must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, there is no possession. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, it is a catch, interception, or recovery.[/font][/size]

[size=4][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Note 2: If a player goes to the ground out-of-bounds (with or without contact by an opponent) in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball at the sideline, he must maintain complete and continuous control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, or there is no possession.[/font][/size]

[size=4][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Note 3: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession."[/font][/size]

[size=4][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Link- [url="http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/6_Rule3_Definitions.pdf"]http://static.nfl.co...Definitions.pdf[/url][/font][/size]

[size=4][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]According to their own rules, it's the Ravens ball and Reed is awarded a fumble recovery. It's [/font][/size][size=4][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]unbelieveable that the Ref who is right there gets it right, but somehow the head Ref, after contact with the "upstairs", and reviewing it, changes the call. I just wonder if we are going to follow the rulebook, or make up calls as we go along to fit our own agenda.[/font][/size]
13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of all calls to complain about, you seem to be complaining about a pretty obvious call to me.

He didn't have control of the ball, and he was out of bounds. The forced fumble was nice, and David Reed almost got it. But he didn't. The camera angles were clear. It wasn't one of those "well... we didn't have indisputable evidence" cases. It was clear. He didn't get the ball in bounds.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Tdog' timestamp='1355156482' post='1255296']
[font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]In my opinion, the ruling on the recovery of the ball was bogus. The Ref and the NFL owe us a large appology for screwing up the call. According to Rule 3, Section, 2, Article 7 of the [u]NFL Rulebook[/u]: Player Possession- it states[/font]

[font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]"Note 1: A player who goes to the ground in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball (with or without contact by an opponent) must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, there is no possession. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, it is a catch, interception, or recovery.[/font]

[font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Note 2: If a player goes to the ground out-of-bounds (with or without contact by an opponent) in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball at the sideline, he must maintain complete and continuous control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, or there is no possession.[/font]

[font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Note 3: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession."[/font]

[font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Link- [url="http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/6_Rule3_Definitions.pdf"]http://static.nfl.co...Definitions.pdf[/url][/font]

[font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif][b]According to their own rules, it's the Ravens ball and Reed is awarded a fumble recovery.[/b] It's [/font][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]unbelieveable that the Ref who is right there gets it right, but somehow the head Ref, after contact with the "upstairs", and reviewing it, changes the call. I just wonder if we are going to follow the rulebook, or make up calls as we go along to fit our own agenda.[/font]
[/quote]

Guess everybody has a different interpretation. I read the same rule above and saw the play and think it was the right call.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Funny how one turn of the ball is the difference between a win and a loss...I jumped and screamed at the bar "its over" ....smh
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I dont like the rule, just because the ball moved a tiny bit does not mean he didnt possess it. He grabbed it in bounds and never lost control of it, I think that shouldve been our ball.

If he grabbed it the same way but then it hit the ground or popped into the air a litte and not just move around in his arms like it did then, yes, it wasnt a recovery, but he had it in his arms the whole time. Like i said, I dont like the rule.
4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IMO the interception and the stripped fumble were the killers....they were moving the ball fairly well on both possesions.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Twistidfunk' timestamp='1355172369' post='1256398']
David Reed blew it. Plain and simple.

We were better off with him not suiting up.
[/quote]

He should've been cut after single-handedly losing that Seattle game last season. He is as clumsy as he is stupid.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='T3hRaven' timestamp='1355172449' post='1256400']
He should've been cut after single-handedly losing that Seattle game last season. He is as clumsy as he is stupid [b]AND FRAGILE[/b].
[/quote]
Had to add to that. That would have ENDED the game...but NO<><><>
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It was a bad call (review)

Rule on the field was a recovery in bounds

Replay showed he clearly had the ball in his chest while in bounds.

Ball moved slightly after he had possestion and momentum pushed him out of bounds.

Very close call either way but no where near enough inrefutable evidence to overturn.


At any rate you guys need to give DR a break. I have been one of his biggest haters since that Seatle game, but since he has been back, hes been a man on fire. Its not like he was expecting the ball to be fumbled and knew he had to stay in bounds. He did the best he could considering the cirumstances and you guys should be happy he had the nose to atleast try and get us the possestion.
6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Twistidfunk' timestamp='1355172369' post='1256398']
David Reed blew it. Plain and simple.

We were better off with him not suiting up.
[/quote]

You guys Blaming Reed for the the Fumble is downright Comical.

Your right though, he should have defied the laws of physics and nature and somehow stopped his momentum from taking him out a bounds. While he's at it, he sould have fired up his magic 8 ball and known the ball was going to be fumbled at that spot at that time.

Lets not blame Defense for blown coverages, Flacco for making rookie mistakes like always, or recievers from running poor routes and dropping the ball like usual.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='nk02442' timestamp='1355176019' post='1256513']
It was a bad call (review)

Rule on the field was a recovery in bounds

Replay showed he clearly had the ball in his chest while in bounds.

Ball moved slightly after he had possestion and momentum pushed him out of bounds.

Very close call either way but no where near enough inrefutable evidence to overturn.


At any rate you guys need to give DR a break. I have been one of his biggest haters since that Seatle game, but since he has been back, hes been a man on fire. Its not like he was expecting the ball to be fumbled and knew he had to stay in bounds. He did the best he could considering the cirumstances and you guys should be happy he had the nose to atleast try and get us the possestion.
[/quote]

He actually has been all over the place, flying around (agree there), but the recovery was definitely recovered out of bounds.

Go Cundiff!
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ive been really impressed with Reed since hes come back, hes a pretty good special teamer. On that play he did exactly what you're coached to do, fall on it, dont try and pick it up. You cant put any blame on him there
4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just for all your Reed haters, last week against the Steelers he had 2 tackles on punts for a net gain of -3 yards. Also had a tackle assist on another. Key reason the dangerous Antonio Brown was kept in check. In fact they had 9 yards on 5 attempts with a long of 6.
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whoa, whoa, whoa. First of all what the H? Yeah, I am not fond of David Reed. I blamed him for the Seahawks loss in 2011. He has also proven to be injury-prone. He also had that stupid suspension for flushing drugs down the toilet, too. I mean let's face it: he has done some really dumb things.

With that said, I can't blame him for anything since he returned. He has played well. He did a good job. He tried to recover the fumble. Give the man credit for actually being near the ball, recognizing the fumble and actually trying to get the ball rather than watch it go out of bounds. He tried. That's all I can ask.

People are being too hard on him.
6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I fail to see how Reed didn't have possession. How much possession does somebody need to show? The ball never left his hands.
3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tdog -

Very well stated! When refs win and lose games instead of the players, it's disgusting and takes all the fun out of the games. Gee, I wonder who had how much money on this one ...... hmmmmm.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='tctony' timestamp='1355179255' post='1256623']
I fail to see how Reed didn't have possession. How much possession does somebody need to show? The ball never left his hands.
[/quote]
Agreed, we were screwed and it is not the first time this season where the refs cost us a game. We were screwed during the Eagles game also on that Jacoby Jones TD.
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='tctony' timestamp='1355179255' post='1256623']
I fail to see how Reed didn't have possession. How much possession does somebody need to show? The ball never left his hands.
[/quote]

Correct in the fact that it never left his heads, but he gained full control of the ball while out of bounds. Its the movement the ball had while in his grasp. Unfortunately, correct call.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Tdog' timestamp='1355156482' post='1255296']
[size=4][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]In my opinion, the ruling on the recovery of the ball was bogus. The Ref and the NFL owe us a large appology for screwing up the call. According to Rule 3, Section, 2, Article 7 of the [u]NFL Rulebook[/u]: Player Possession- it states[/font][/size]

[size=4][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]"Note 1: A player who goes to the ground in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball (with or without contact by an opponent) must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, there is no possession. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, it is a catch, interception, or recovery.[/font][/size]

[size=4][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Note 2: If a player goes to the ground out-of-bounds (with or without contact by an opponent) in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball at the sideline, he must maintain complete and continuous control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, or there is no possession.[/font][/size]

[size=4][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Note 3: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession."[/font][/size]

[size=4][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Link- [url="http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/6_Rule3_Definitions.pdf"]http://static.nfl.co...Definitions.pdf[/url][/font][/size]

[size=4][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]According to their own rules, it's the Ravens ball and Reed is awarded a fumble recovery. It's [/font][/size][size=4][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]unbelieveable that the Ref who is right there gets it right, but somehow the head Ref, after contact with the "upstairs", and reviewing it, changes the call. I just wonder if we are going to follow the rulebook, or make up calls as we go along to fit our own agenda.[/font][/size]
[/quote]


Am I missing something here? In reading notes 2 and 3 it sounds like a perfect description of what occurred and should have been a recovery. Reed did not lose control of the ball. There was slight movement and the ball never touched the ground. Correct?
3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='1/28/01' timestamp='1355180114' post='1256649']


Correct in the fact that it never left his heads, but he gained full control of the ball while out of bounds. Its the movement the ball had while in his grasp. Unfortunately, correct call.
[/quote]


Did it touch the ground? I didn't think so. But if it did that would constitute "losing possession". If not, I think it has to be a good recovery.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Mt. Crushmore' timestamp='1355176927' post='1256553']
Just for all your Reed haters, last week against the Steelers he had 2 tackles on punts for a net gain of -3 yards. Also had a tackle assist on another. Key reason the dangerous Antonio Brown was kept in check. In fact they had 9 yards on 5 attempts with a long of 6.
[/quote]

Nice.. a special teams player that is either injured/suspended/benched. Valuable guy...
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='awholelottahaloti' timestamp='1355180273' post='1256655']



Did it touch the ground? I didn't think so. But if it did that would constitute "losing possession". If not, I think it has to be a good recovery.
[/quote]

Sorry, doesnt need to touch the ground. Ball moving while sliding out of bounds = no possession every time :(
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='1/28/01' timestamp='1355180114' post='1256649']
Correct in the fact that it never left his heads, but he gained full control of the ball while out of bounds. Its the movement the ball had while in his grasp. Unfortunately, correct call.
[/quote]

Full control is subjective and that call could have went either way. He had the possitive possestion inbounds, how long does he need to hold it, how much can the ball move, what happens when your points of contact are all already on the ground? On the field call gave us the ball and there was not enough to overturn it. I guess the inrefutable evidence threshold can change game to game as well?


There is no consitiancy in offiating in this league and thats one of the things that makes it so hard to watch. In my opinion, take away all subjective penalties (PI/HOLDING/Illegal contact) and let the men fight it out like the old days.


In the end, No one should be blaming David Reed for that play. He did everything he could to get us the ball, and has nothing to be ashamed of.
4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='1/28/01' timestamp='1355180883' post='1256692']


Sorry, doesnt need to touch the ground. Ball moving while sliding out of bounds = no possession every time :(
[/quote]


Hmmmm..... Not that it matters at this point, but it seems that note 3(2 and 1 as well) support a recovery. I would think anything other than a slight movement would mean he lost contact with the ball. It wasn't like he was juggling it, it almost looked as though he shifted it in his hands always maintaining contact and control as defined. According to the rule, it seems he maintained possession.
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='nk02442' timestamp='1355176163' post='1256519']
You guys Blaming Reed for the the Fumble is downright Comical.

Your right though, he should have defied the laws of physics and nature and somehow stopped his momentum from taking him out a bounds. While he's at it, he sould have fired up his magic 8 ball and known the ball was going to be fumbled at that spot at that time.

Lets not blame Defense for blown coverages, Flacco for making rookie mistakes like always, or recievers from running poor routes and dropping the ball like usual.
[/quote]

Disagree. He didn't need to dive on the ball carrying his momentum out of bounds. He knew he was a few feet from the sideline.

Bonehead play from a bonehead player.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you think that was a bad call, how 'bout the two illegal blocks in the back on the 69 yard punt return in OT? I didn't see it until today when I viewed the highlights on a sports show. The illegal blocks were obvious but the refs chose to ignore them. Our players who sound off to the press need to keep their mouths shut and just play football for the rest of the season. The NFL refs obviously do not like the Ravens because they are outspoken critics of the officials. Every time there is a close call that could go either way it ususally goes against us. I wonder why! The call against Haloti earlier in the game was horrendous and a knee-jerk reaction to RG3's helmet coming dislodged. C'mon man!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='frozen joe flacco fan' timestamp='1355190675' post='1257039']
If you think that was a bad call, [u][b]how 'bout the two illegal blocks in the back on the 69 yard punt return in OT?[/b][/u] I didn't see it until today when I viewed the highlights on a sports show. The illegal blocks were obvious but the refs chose to ignore them. Our players who sound off to the press need to keep their mouths shut and just play football for the rest of the season. The NFL refs obviously do not like the Ravens because they are outspoken critics of the officials. Every time there is a close call that could go either way it ususally goes against us. I wonder why! The call against Haloti earlier in the game was horrendous and a knee-jerk reaction to RG3's helmet coming dislodged. C'mon man!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[/quote]

i saw those to.

~Mili
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, they didn't lose us the game, but had they made what I thought was the right call we would've come out on top.
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Militant X 1' timestamp='1355190455' post='1257029']
that call didn't lose us the game though.

~Mili
[/quote]

Nope. But it could have won it.
3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Twistidfunk' timestamp='1355190257' post='1257022']
Disagree. He didn't need to dive on the ball carrying his momentum out of bounds. He knew he was a few feet from the sideline.

Bonehead play from a bonehead player.
[/quote]

Your right. Apparently newton must have had it all wrong.

So is he supposed to defy the laws of nature or stop himself, which would have ended up with the skins having the ball anyway?

Maybe football is new to you, but when a ball hits the ground EVERYONE goes for it. Their job is to fall on it. Thats exactly what he did, and DR did it well in fact.

DR is the LAST guy to blame for losing this game. You dont know what your talking about.
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='nk02442' timestamp='1355194789' post='1257225']
Your right. Apparently newton must have had it all wrong.

So is he supposed to defy the laws of nature or stop himself, which would have ended up with the skins having the ball anyway?

Maybe football is new to you, but when a ball hits the ground EVERYONE goes for it. Their job is to fall on it. Thats exactly what he did, and DR did it well in fact.

DR is the LAST guy to blame for losing this game. You dont know what your talking about.
[/quote]

haha, look everyone, an EXPERT. We got ourselves a regular Ron Jaworski on the message boards!

Whatever man. You see what you want. I am under the impression he should have been more aware of where he was. He did not need to leap carrying his momentum out of bounds.

You go ahead and see what you want, defend poor play.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Twistidfunk' timestamp='1355228424' post='1257674']


haha, look everyone, an EXPERT. We got ourselves a regular Ron Jaworski on the message boards!

Whatever man. You see what you want. I am under the impression he should have been more aware of where he was. He did not need to leap carrying his momentum out of bounds.

You go ahead and see what you want, defend poor play.
[/quote]


In all fairness, Reed wasn't stationary and then the ball dropped in front of him. He was running full tilt down the field on kick coverage. Not sure how he could have done anything differently.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='awholelottahaloti' timestamp='1355229609' post='1257685']
In all fairness, Reed wasn't stationary and then the ball dropped in front of him. He was running full tilt down the field on kick coverage. Not sure how he could have done anything differently.
[/quote]

Exactly..... Its pretty pathetic guys are blasting the kid who was doing everything he could to get the ball for us.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I felt that since it was called a recovery on the field the replays didn't have enough evidence to overturn it decisively. I felt they should have said the ruling on the field is upheld ( meaning we don't see enough to change it ).

I thought it was ironic when it happen that David reed could save the game, seal the victory by recovering a fumbled kickoff. After losing that game vs Seattle with numerous fumbles.

I was surprise that David reed was active and playing he isn't returning kicks or punts. So that means both he and Laquan were active solely for ST gunners.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='nk02442' timestamp='1355230102' post='1257691']
Exactly..... Its pretty pathetic guys are blasting the kid who was doing everything he could to get the ball for us.
[/quote]

explain what speed "full tilt" is... if he holds onto the ball he achieves what we needed him to. fact is... no bobble, we win the game. It was possible to recover , it wouldn't have been anything special.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='1/28/01' timestamp='1355180883' post='1256692']
Sorry, doesnt need to touch the ground. Ball moving while sliding out of bounds = no possession every time :(
[/quote]
yep
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='nk02442' timestamp='1355194789' post='1257225']
YOU'RE right. Apparently newton must have had it all wrong.

So is he supposed to defy the laws of nature or stop himself, which would have ended up with the skins having the ball anyway?

Maybe football is new to you, but when a ball hits the ground EVERYONE goes for it. Their job is to fall on it. Thats exactly what he did, and DR did it well in fact.

DR is the LAST guy to blame for losing this game. You dont know what your talking about.
[/quote]

His job was to posses the ball... falling on it out of bounds was NEVER his job.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='H8R' timestamp='1355232070' post='1257706']
I fixed YOUR grammar. I would never call someone for poor usage on a messageboard. However, when you come in with a smug attittude... YOUR ego is disproportionate to your knowledge. Please explain to me what Sir Newton has to do with this? He had a lot of theories, which one in particular are you referring to? Please, enlighten us common-folk.

His job was to posses the ball... falling on it out of bounds was NEVER his job.
[/quote]

You somehow think that a guy running FULL SPEED on a kick return unit who sees a ball pop lose and dives on it is supposed to stop the momentum of his body and stay inbounds? It was a bang bang play and happened in a split second. Your sitting here arm chair quarterbacking what is not even an issue.

His job is not to possess the ball, He is a gunner. His job is to make a tackle and limit the opposing teams field possition.

And since we are clear:
[url="http://lmgtfy.com/?q=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FNewton%2527s_laws_of_motion"]http://lmgtfy.com/?q..._laws_of_motion[/url]
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='nk02442' timestamp='1355235093' post='1257738']
You somehow think that a guy running FULL SPEED on a kick return unit who sees a ball pop lose and dives on it is supposed to stop the momentum of his body and stay inbounds? It was a bang bang play and happened in a split second. Your sitting here arm chair quarterbacking what is not even an issue.

His job is not to possess the ball, He is a gunner. His job is to make a tackle and limit the opposing teams field possition.

And since we are clear:
[url="http://lmgtfy.com/?q=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FNewton%2527s_laws_of_motion"]http://lmgtfy.com/?q..._laws_of_motion[/url]
[/quote]

A players job description changes in an instant. Example. A Wide Receivers job is catch the ball intially, much as it is a gunners job to stop a potential return.. What happens when an RB gets to the second level on a run play, in the case of the WR? He becomes a BLOCKER..Just like that, his role has changed. So, your broad statement of a " gunner has one job" is shortsighted and very foolish. Laws of MOTION have NOTHING to do with his HANDS not controlling the ball.

All you're doing is excusing his gaffe. My point, however is that if he had gained possession, the game would have been won. Reed did have the ball in his hands, had an opportunity to control the ball PRIOR to going out of bounds. He FAILED to do so, not becasue he was "running full speed" but because HE bobbled it... Is that no clear to you? It was never a question of if his momentum carried him out of bounds.. THE question is.. DID he CONTROL it? No, he didnt.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[color=#800000][b]MOD NOTE:[/b][/color] Get back on topic, not attacking each other
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='nk02442' timestamp='1355176019' post='1256513']
It was a bad call (review)

Rule on the field was a recovery in bounds

Replay showed he clearly had the ball in his chest while in bounds.

Ball moved slightly after he had possestion and momentum pushed him out of bounds.

Very close call either way but no where near enough inrefutable evidence to overturn.


At any rate you guys need to give DR a break. I have been one of his biggest haters since that Seatle game, but since he has been back, hes been a man on fire. Its not like he was expecting the ball to be fumbled and knew he had to stay in bounds. He did the best he could considering the cirumstances and you guys should be happy he had the nose to atleast try and get us the possestion.
[/quote]
[quote name='nk02442' timestamp='1355176019' post='1256513']
It was a bad call (review)

Rule on the field was a recovery in bounds

Replay showed he clearly had the ball in his chest while in bounds.

Ball moved slightly after he had possestion and momentum pushed him out of bounds.

[b]Very close call either way but no where near enough inrefutable evidence to overturn.[/b]


At any rate you guys need to give DR a break. I have been one of his biggest haters since that Seatle game, but since he has been back, hes been a man on fire. Its not like he was expecting the ball to be fumbled and knew he had to stay in bounds. He did the best he could considering the cirumstances and you guys should be happy he had the nose to atleast try and get us the possestion.
[/quote]

And this is my problem with the shady NFL officials. They'll always use that "excuse" against us when it works for them, but when it was obvious it was a super close call they still overturned it. Same with the 4th & 29. They didn't have enough evidence to move that ball and re-measure. It's just disgusting what they do to the Ravens.

I agree with the threadstarter they blew that call as well.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='H8R' timestamp='1355236308' post='1257755']
A players job description changes in an instant. Example. A Wide Receivers job is catch the ball intially, much as it is a gunners job to stop a potential return.. What happens when an RB gets to the second level on a run play, in the case of the WR? He becomes a BLOCKER..Just like that, his role has changed. So, your broad statement of a " gunner has one job" is shortsighted and very foolish. Laws of MOTION have NOTHING to do with his HANDS not controlling the ball.

All you're doing is excusing his gaffe. My point, however is that if he had gained possession, the game would have been won. Reed did have the ball in his hands, had an opportunity to control the ball PRIOR to going out of bounds. He FAILED to do so, not becasue he was "running full speed" but because HE bobbled it... Is that no clear to you? It was never a question of if his momentum carried him out of bounds.. THE question is.. DID he CONTROL it? No, he didnt.
[/quote]

I am the LAST person to make excuses for any player, and if you read my posts, you would see that clearly. You guys are harping on a non issue, nothing more .
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites